Five cases on consent

The court finds the officer more believable on the consent question because if, as defendant contends, it was fabricated, the officer also had to fabricate that defendant limited consent after the search started, and then the officer had to get a search warrant. That seems highly unlikely to all be fabricated. Therefore, defendant is found to have consented to the initial search up to withdrawal. United States v. Awad, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15763 (D.Minn. Jan. 19, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15761 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2016).*

Defendant had no standing in storage units rented by another to which he had shown no connection. No key, not a renter, no authority to allow or exclude others. United States v. Ramirez-Portillo, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175959 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 11, 2015),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14973 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2016).*

Defendant is found to have consented by emptying his pockets out on his own without having been asked to do anything. United States v. Richardson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176026 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 1, 2015),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15905 (N.D. Ga., Feb. 10, 2016).*

Defendant is found not credible on the question of consent, and the consent is found voluntary. United States v. Thomas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175987 (D.Nev. Nov. 3, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15073 (D. Nev. Feb. 5, 2016).*

Lack of consent to the search can’t be raised on appeal because it wasn’t raised in the trial court. State v. Shutway, 2016-Ohio-431, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 367 (2d Dist. Feb. 5, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.